However, we are dealing with a balance between rights. The right to privacy on the one hand, and look for the expression on the other. This balance means that not every mention of a detail relating to the plaintiff's health condition will be considered an invasion of privacy, but rather the scope of the disclosure must be examined in the totality of the circumstances. With all the understanding of the plaintiff's grievance about the mention of his personal affairs, in the balance with the search for expression and creation, if it were found that it was an incidental mention, it would have been possible to prefer the search for the expression and reject the claim of invasion of privacy.
The problem is that the defendant's reference to these details of information about the villain is not marginal, incidental and not one-time.
The issue of the overweight of that hero, "the villain", is a central motif in the description of his character, and it has already been noted that the defendant chose to refer to him with a derogatory title - "the oil". This expression, although it seems to be a purely descriptive word, is perceived as a negative and offensive reference. As a phrase that means contempt, criticism and contempt.
Regarding the manner in which the presentation of an overweight person may be interpreted, it is written as follows (Judge Kobi Vardi):
The invalidity and the defect are in the combination of the photograph of the appellant who was chosen to be photographed solely because she is a fat woman whom the camera focuses on in order to present her as a background to articles on obesity that are broadcast in a negative context as an "epidemic" and "as an enemy of the public", and the respondent went further by making additional use (albeit by mistake) of the appellant's photographs in the second broadcast. Even without determining that society and a reasonable person view a fat person in a negative light in light of the social conventions and social codes that are accepted today, in the circumstances and in the negative context in which the phenomenon of obesity and the appellant was presented in the broadcasts, it can be determined that these broadcasts are liable to humiliate and/or humiliate the appellant even according to the reasonable person test, and therefore the torts exist under the Prohibition of Defamation Law and the Protection of Privacy Law. (Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3645/07 Kozobar Anna v. News 10 Ltd., [published in Nevo] 12 May 2009, para. 15)